Gay couple detained near MORMAN plaza

[Plecostomus]

Mormons are ridiculous. At least with most religions it's a little harder to see just how obviously made up they are because of a couple of thousand years of history passing since their founding. But Mormons? They're pretty much Scientology without the spaceships as best as I can tell.

Uh, no. It's a retread of christian belief (bible and all that) but with "modern day" prophecy and a set of "lost scripture" that somehow was found 20 miles from my house by a farm-boy named Joseph.

Right, and then the mighty golden plates were lost again or something. Why not?

Oh they aren't "lost" they are in plain view down in Palmyra. They were never "lost" everyone was told the ones on display were "duplicates."

Given what I know of church history, it fits. Hide them in plain view and tell everyone they are "not the real plates."

...But I like that "Scientology without the spaceships" bit! I'll use that on the Jehovah's when they show up next time.

I don't know a ton about Mormons. I think there was the South Park episode, a couple of wikipedia pages, and uhhh, Big Love on HBO. The whole thing comes off as pretty far fetched to me. Oh, and what's the deal, Mormon's don't like Jehovah's coming to their door? I like the irony

There is a difference between Latter Day Saints (which I am a member of) and the fringe "Mormon" groups depicted in Big Love. Official LDS policy is no polygamy, and it's been that way for over a century. The fringe groups, cults and "communes" that use our scriptures in their belief systems.. they're the ones who give the mainstream church the bad rap. And as for the Jehovah's and their ilk, most members of that group I've worked with over the years are outright hostile to anyone who is not them. To the point where it's disruptive to the workplace. Whereas the LDS I've worked with, we tend to keep quiet about our beliefs lest we set off a weeks long flamewar that disrupts the flow of production.

Typically you can spot the Jehovah a mile away but you typically can't see the LDS member unless you ask 'em.

*shrug* In the end I disagree with the militant anti-homo policy that's why I'm not as active as I used to be. Frankly the church could have spent the money they spent on that stupid law on supporting it's members, not drawing attention to a largely unsustainable and irrelevant belief.

We LDS members pride ourselves in being able to change with the times and remain relevant because we have a "living prophet" who delivers "latter day revelations" about how things should be done... ...when in fact the chuch ruling groups and indeed the prophet himself... they are just a bunch of scared old men trying to keep things "the same as they always were."


If and when the church does step into the modern day then I'll become active again. That includes women in the priesthood, acceptance of homosexuality and a few other things.

...in other words I'll most likely die an inactive member.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Good for you Gep, now E-mail SF mayor or write a letter & tell him to clean up his city's image & arrest ANYONE that pees on people in public streets. Don't make special allowances for gays. If a straight did it somewhere else not on parade day, he or she would be locked up, but apparently Gays have exclusive peeing rights there.

Are you talking about San Francisco? Because all I've found on it is this:

San Francisco supervisors voted unanimously today to make it illegal to urinate or defecate on city streets, but added an exception for people with a "verified medical condition.''

I'm pretty sure they're not lobbing homosexuals into that group.

They needed to have a VOTE in order to know this was a bad thing? Classic!

 

[J.T.B.]

What I'm saying is, the LDS church should be a little more understanding of public displays of affection on a major pedestrian thoroughfare through a city. Also, I somehow doubt the rules are applied evenly toward heterosexual couples.

For what it's worth, it doesn't look like a street anymore. The space where the street used to be is more like a small park, maybe 50 feet wide, with landscaping, trees, planters, some monuments, a fountain and so on, with a stone-paved path winding through it north-south. Temple Square, which has walls and gates, is on the west side, and the Joseph Smith Memorial Building is on the east side (the old Hotel Utah, now owned by the church and mostly used for offices). You have to walk through a line of bollards about 3 ft high to cross into the plaza. The pedestrian traffic there is mostly tourists and church employees. To me, if I were approaching the plaza for the first time and knew nothing about it, I think I would guess that it was all part of the same complex with the temple.

"Should" they be more understanding... Well, I would be, but I think people have the right to express their own values on their property, whether I agree with them or not.

As far as how heterosexuals would be treated in a similar situation, I doubt anything would be said about a quick peck, but if it was more like a make-out session there is no doubt in my mind that the couple would be asked to leave.

It's kind of funny... When the church and the city made the original Main Street deal, the church made it clear up front that it would restrict conduct on its property, which led to the freedom of speech lawsuit mentioned above. It was a very controversial issue with Salt Lakers (except, strangely enough, for the very left-wing mayor at the time), but in the better part of a decade there hasn't been a mojor controversy till now. I think they were thinking more along the lines of Christian demonstrators yelling at the Mormons to repent, but it turned out to be two guys kissing that started a furor.

--Justin

 

[Locutus of Bored]

^^^ Thanks for the info.

 

[farmkid]

After reading through the police report I linked to a few pages back, and then thinking about it a little more, it seems to me that these two guys weren't trying to make any kind of statement. They were just a couple of drunk guys on their way home from some event and got a little affectionante with each other. When asked to control their behavior or leave, they got offended and belligerent and it escalated from there. I don't think they set out to start a controversy; it was more a drunken accident than anything else.

 

[Amaris]

After reading through the police report I linked to a few pages back, and then thinking about it a little more, it seems to me that these two guys weren't trying to make any kind of statement. They were just a couple of drunk guys on their way home from some event and got a little affectionante with each other. When asked to control their behavior or leave, they got offended and belligerent and it escalated from there. I don't think they set out to start a controversy; it was more a drunken accident than anything else.

Personally, I think both sides should apologize to one another for it.
The drunk guys for public intoxication on private property, and the Church for being a little too heavy handed in handling the matter.

J.

 

[Messianni]

After reading through the police report I linked to a few pages back, and then thinking about it a little more, it seems to me that these two guys weren't trying to make any kind of statement. They were just a couple of drunk guys on their way home from some event and got a little affectionante with each other. When asked to control their behavior or leave, they got offended and belligerent and it escalated from there. I don't think they set out to start a controversy; it was more a drunken accident than anything else.

Personally, I think both sides should apologize to one another for it.
The drunk guys for public intoxication on private property, and the Church for being a little too heavy handed in handling the matter.

J.

And the latter will never, ever happen.

 

[Yoda]

Right, and then the mighty golden plates were lost again or something. Why not?

Oh they aren't "lost" they are in plain view down in Palmyra. They were never "lost" everyone was told the ones on display were "duplicates."

Given what I know of church history, it fits. Hide them in plain view and tell everyone they are "not the real plates."

Umm. Right.

There is a difference between Latter Day Saints (which I am a member of) and the fringe "Mormon" groups depicted in Big Love. Official LDS policy is no polygamy, and it's been that way for over a century.

It's actually pretty clear in the show that the polygamists are frowned upon by the mainstream LDSers.

The fringe groups, cults and "communes" that use our scriptures in their belief systems.. they're the ones who give the mainstream church the bad rap.

The polygamists do have a bit of a point though. I mean, the religion is less than 200 years old, started with polygamy, and seemingly only ditched it because it didn't fly with the government. So aren't the cults and communes more in touch with the Joseph Smith and Angel Moroni Plate religion than LDS?

And as for the Jehovah's and their ilk, most members of that group I've worked with over the years are outright hostile to anyone who is not them. To the point where it's disruptive to the workplace. Whereas the LDS I've worked with, we tend to keep quiet about our beliefs lest we set off a weeks long flamewar that disrupts the flow of production.

Typically you can spot the Jehovah a mile away but you typically can't see the LDS member unless you ask 'em.

Well, in my experience it's pretty obvious when either the Jehovah's is coming, or the LDS guys are coming. The LDSers tend to show up in pairs of two with the shirt and tie and all that. It's actually been a while since a Jehovah's witness came my way, but I did know someone who was apparently one of them. He was one of the most popular kids in my high school, despite being from the one hispanic family in a town full of whities. He ended up going to the Air Force Academy. Last thing I saw of him was a picture of him and President Bush looking/pointing at something in the sky.

*shrug* In the end I disagree with the militant anti-homo policy that's why I'm not as active as I used to be. Frankly the church could have spent the money they spent on that stupid law on supporting it's members, not drawing attention to a largely unsustainable and irrelevant belief.

We LDS members pride ourselves in being able to change with the times and remain relevant because we have a "living prophet" who delivers "latter day revelations" about how things should be done... ...when in fact the chuch ruling groups and indeed the prophet himself... they are just a bunch of scared old men trying to keep things "the same as they always were."


If and when the church does step into the modern day then I'll become active again. That includes women in the priesthood, acceptance of homosexuality and a few other things.

...in other words I'll most likely die an inactive member.

Yeah, if you want to keep forward thinking, you're probably better off keeping any organized religion out of your beliefs

 

[TheLonelySquire]

After reading through the police report I linked to a few pages back, and then thinking about it a little more, it seems to me that these two guys weren't trying to make any kind of statement. They were just a couple of drunk guys on their way home from some event and got a little affectionante with each other. When asked to control their behavior or leave, they got offended and belligerent and it escalated from there. I don't think they set out to start a controversy; it was more a drunken accident than anything else.

Personally, I think both sides should apologize to one another for it.
The drunk guys for public intoxication on private property, and the Church for being a little too heavy handed in handling the matter.

J.

And the latter will never, ever happen.

Nor should it. To do so would be the same as condoning the conduct in question.

 

[Amaris]

Personally, I think both sides should apologize to one another for it.
The drunk guys for public intoxication on private property, and the Church for being a little too heavy handed in handling the matter.

J.

And the latter will never, ever happen.

Nor should it. To do so would be the same as condoning the conduct in question.

No, to do so would indicate a sense of humility and reason.


J.